On 2020/06/03 12:06, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:43:17 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >> I will change the status back to Needs Review.
Thanks for the review!
> record = ReadCheckpointRecord(xlogreader, checkPointLoc, 1, false); > if (record != NULL) > { > - fast_promoted = true; > + promoted = true; > > Even if we missed the last checkpoint record, we don't give up > promotion and continue fall-back promotion but the variable "promoted" > stays false. That is confusiong. > > How about changing it to fallback_promotion, or some names with more > behavior-specific name like immediate_checkpoint_needed?
I like doEndOfRecoveryCkpt or something, but I have no strong opinion about that flag naming. So I'm ok with immediate_checkpoint_needed if others also like that, too.
Regards,
-- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION